If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have done a little research on Cyclamates, and it looks like the product should have never been banned. It is still used in many countries and has been re-approved in many more. Currently the FDA is still reconsidering its use in the US. I do not care for diet drinks, but I can remember how great Fresca tasted and how well it sold. Cyclamates are much sweeter and cheaper than almost everyother sweetener.

Do a web search on cyclamates and draw your own conclusions. Before 1968 almost all diet drinks contained cyclamates and tasted good. You may be too young to remember the Fresca in the 10oz frosty green glass bottles. One day the US government banned cyclamates because of tainted studies and all diet drinks were pulled off the shelves overnight.

Aspartame at 24 hours had levels too low to reach significance with any
of the 21 control groups.

However, people who are heavy users of aspartame for years are bound to
accumulate toxic metabolites of the three components of aspartame:
methanol 11%, phenylalanine 50%, aspartic acid 29%, all genotoxic
[Trocho (1998), Karakis (1998)].

Comparing the mean control values to the values for the other 7 sweeteners:
Best is acesulfame K, with no significant or high values.

Good is glycyrrhizin (derived from licorice), two 1.4 ratios for Stomach and
Brain.

Next is stevia, with one high value [above ratio 1.4],
9.48+-1.99 for Bladder, 2000 mg 3 hr, ratio 1.8 .

We should keep in mind that toxicity in humans involves many vulnerable
groups, years of daily use, often evolution of hypersensitivity, and
complex interactions with a multitude of foods, additives, and other toxins.

Notice that stevia did have one high value, for
bladder, which would become significant if a few dozen mice had been tested.

The Sasaki study can readily be expanded by testing primates and
humans,using many more subjects, tissues, levels of dose, durations of
exposure,special subjects (fetus, infant, youth, mature, old, obese, ill,
stressed, specific genetic weaknesses, simultaneous exposure to other
toxins)-- so clearly it is
an astonishing pilot study, that has received very little attention. Sasaki
has not answered any of my posts, so I can only hope he is expanding his
research.

I use my open group archive as a web site, since anyone can access any
of my 1023 posts.

All three of these reviews, which I put on the archive about every three
months, contain this summary of symptoms, roughly in order of prevalence and
development in time: